[Raz2133]

Quote:anybody know where dreamhost-sucks.com went? Coincidence? Extraterrestrial action?

Perhaps it has something to do with this dreamhoststatus.com post. Although, Jeff did state in the comments that critical sites were legally protected.

Mark

--
Save $50 on DreamHost plans using PRICESLASH promo code (Click for DreamHost promo code details)

[rlparker]

Quote:Perhaps it has something to do with this dreamhoststatus.com post. Although, Jeff did state in the comments that critical sites were legally protected.

That could very well have something to do with it. A quick "google" will make it pretty obvious that the "tide has turned" a bit on the whole "sucks sites" situation.

For years it was pretty much a crapshoot - the court rulings were pretty inconsistent, with the "suck site" operator prevailing at times and the trademark holder prevailing at other times. That seems to be changing, as most recent rulings have landed squarely on the side of the trademark holder.

The content of critical sites may well be protected legally, but the "law" seems to be evolving more toward supporting the trademark holder when it comes to the use of a trademark in a domain name, "parody" and "criticism" considerations notwithstanding.

Of course, given that quality, and content, of that particular site (old content, not updated, few contributors, puppet-population, etc.) "natural selection" might have just kicked in resulting in its demise. No real loss. .

--rlparker

[genesteinberg]

Quote:Gene,

Any remotely credible complaint of spamming will get Dreamhost to take you down too, or at least make you scramble and beg for a 2nd chance.

BTW, anybody know where dreamhost-sucks.com went? Coincidence? Extraterrestrial action?

The key in your response is "credible complaint of spamming," which is not one lone complaint about an announcement for a free program that contains family-friendly content.

I agree that, with compelling evidence of spamming, the registrar and/or host may indeed be put in a position where they have to make some important decisions. In this case, however, the client needs to be given proper notice to explain his or her actions and provide the requested indemnification.

But I think you see the distinction here between the former and the latter. I'll vote for the latter every time.

Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Co-Host, The Paracast
http://www.theparacast.com

[rlparker]

Quote:A quick "google" will make it pretty obvious that the "tide has turned" - That could have some to do with the recent defusing of google bombs.

I suppose it *could*, if you launched a "google bomb" for your search. Using any reasonable series of appropriate and relevant search terms makes the whole handling of your search by any change in "google-bomb" handling completely irrelevant.

Or, you could use another search facility, or just research the last couple of years WIPO trends reports, or use any other method of research that suits you.

Whatever method of research you use, the fact is that the trend on the handling of "suck sites" disputes is changing, partly because of a WIPO report on trends in domain name dispute decisions, published in March 2005.

"On 'sucks' sites, it agreed that non-fluent English speakers would fail to recognize the negative connotations of the word. " - Source

--rlparker

[misoman]

Quote:BTW, anybody know where dreamhost-sucks.com went?

Maybe Dreamhost doesn't suck anymore?

[scjessey]

Quote:Did they ever?

No.

--------
Simon's website
Save $100 on 1-year plans with promo code SCJESSEY100 (details)

[genesteinberg]

Quote:It starts with one complaint that looks potentially credible. Neither free nor family-friendly has anything to do with it, AFAIK.

It's a matter of how the registrar and/or host provider handles it, however. They could simply email the sender and ask what happened. In most cases, it can probably be easily explained as a mistake on the part of the recipient, or unintentional.

If the company goes overboard in investigating the matter, however, threatening to demand a "tribute" payment to keep from suspending a domain, or hold it hostage from transfer without paying an exorbitant fee, that's another issue.

The first is proper due diligence. The second is excessive, and unjustified.

Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Co-Host, The Paracast
http://www.theparacast.com

[rlparker]

Quote:It turns out to be another hosting sucks situation...I predict coming soon: assplus.com and/or aplus-sucks.com sites. dreamhost-sucks.com is probably lowest priority of his sites to bring back online.

...and then, shortly, a GoDaddySucks version, no doubt. This guy obviously has patently "bad luck" with hosts.

--rlparker

[Raz2133]

Quote:This guy obviously has patently "bad luck" with hosts. [wink

Perhaps there is a generic 'hosting-sucks' site in the making.

Mark

--
Save $50 on DreamHost plans using PRICESLASH promo code (Click for DreamHost promo code details)